Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - vercingetorix

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 80
71
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: September 14, 2008, 01:16:34 PM »
It's not "a life", any more than sperm and eggs are life.  It's potential life, just as those are.  And cloning has proven we don't need need both of these to create an embryo.  So do you weep for every lost sperm and egg as well?  And should most IVF treatments be banned, as extra embryos are nearly always created, and eventually, discarded.

BTW, you leave out the fact that the chicken soup of precautions you, your sister, and the government which fails to provide basic health care for millions of people in this country, assert are necessary to prevent contraceptive failure cost a chunk of change, if all used every day.  So should the married, working poor just not have sex, just so as to please you embryo worshipers?

Fry, Fry, Fry.  The bolded statement is hilariously wrong.  Sperm and eggs, do not spontaneously become babies.  a fertilized ovum, if left unmolested, will become a baby.  it is a human life.  contraceptives are completely free to women who demonstrate a financial need through planned parenthood which has an annual budget of over 1 billion dollars.  you persistently mask the point with ad hominem attacks (what is an embryo worshipper anyway?) and bizarre claims equating individual sperm and eggs with embryos.  the rates of in vitro fertilization are minute.  this is another curious form of debate.  pointing out exceptions at the fringes confuses the central issue which is that the majority of abortions come down to an inescapably selfish calculus: i failed to take precautions that are readily available to me and this human life is a massive inconvenience so let's get rid of it.  that's pretty sad.  by the by, if you look at the progress in neonatology over the past 30 years it is only a matter of time before viability creeps into the first trimester.

72
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: September 14, 2008, 11:52:16 AM »

Lastly, being opposed to abortion does not make someone "pro-life."  It means they are opposed to women having the choice to abort an unwanted or difficult pregnancy.  They are, strictly speaking, anti-choice, in relation to this issue.  Conversely, being supportive of a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion does not make someone "anti-life."  They are, strictly speaking, pro-choice, in relation to this issue.   

I realize that abortion is a political issue, but it should be viewed as a legal issue.
When does the law have to protect the rights of a person.

I think human rights should be given to life from conception on.
If you shoot a pregnant woman in the stomach, and she survives but the baby dies, you should be prosecuted for murder.

That doesn't mean I want to take away the rights of women, or that I'm part of the religious right wing.
"Unwanted" pregnancies come from wanted sex.  Adults know, or should know, that their actions could result in a pregnancy. 

So you would be okay with your wife refusing to have sex with you, until say, menopause?

20-25% of all abortions are by married women.  Most of the pregnancies are birth control failures.  If married people don't want more/any kids, they should not have sex, correct?  Funny, before no-fault, that was grounds for divorce in most states.

this misses 24's point which is that human life begins at conception.  i would love to see the documentation on birth control failures.  if married people don't want more kids, they should use birth control, not avoid sex. you create a false choice.  the pill is almost 100% effective.  if you want to be even more certain, avoid the time when she would normally ovulate.  not hard to do. if she doesn't like taking the pill, then use a condom and avoid the ovulation window, also quite effective.  24 makes an excellent point when he states that unwanted pregnancies come from wanted sex. the panoply of contraceptive devices available to men and women today, make the whole unwanted argument much harder to swallow.  it comes down to (usually) i was lazy (drunk, stupid, reckless, etc) and now, like, i have this baby and um, it's a real bummer so um can we just get rid of it?  women who are raped or sick make up a tiny minority of people who obtain abortions.  i cannot in good conscience judge women who must make a choice under those, very limited circumstances.  those situations pose an awful dilemma. the "convenience" abortions though are symptomatic of the times; people want all the fun and none of the responsibility.  with all the freedoms the sexual revolution brought, and i think many of them were necessary/great, we have yet to accept much of the tremendous responsibilities that accompany these newly found freedoms.

This is patently false.  Many women, anywhere from their mid-thirties until they reach menopause have cycles which are irregular.  This is also the time when oral contraceptives have greater side effects and less efficacy.  All birth control has a failure rate, ranging between 1-10%, which means that married women, who have the opportunity for sex nearly every night, will overwhelmingly have a greater opportunity to be subject to one of those failures.

But this basically all moot anyway - not everyone has a religious fixation on embryos.  Demanding women be unwilling hosts because of your obsessions is tyranny, pure and simple.  If you don't like abortion, don't have one.  But I view it merely as another reproductive choice, one I certainly would utilize if I ever became pregnant again.
Fry, you are missing the main point here.  whether life begins at conception is not a religious issue.  it is a scientific question.  24 points out that perhaps it should be a legal issue, in other words, if we agree that human life begins at conception, shouldn't that life have basic rights? the right to exist seems pretty fundamental.  i showed my sister (who is a gynecologist) who was over for coffee this morning your quote on contraceptive failure rates and it made her laugh.  she directed my attention to the FDA website.  http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/1997/babytabl.html the rates of accidental pregnancy are much closer to 1% than 10%, particularly when you combine methods such as the pill with condoms and the use of an ovulation monitor, or, for the sake of argument, a cervical cap, condom and a fertility monitor.  she often recommends that older women use a combination approach for precisely the reasons you raise.  the FDA website doesn't address combination strategies but you can see why using more than one method necessarily drives the (admittedly) higher rates of pregnancy way down to levels approximating that of the pill or Depo for example.  the vast number of abortions performed each year are not a result of failed contraception but a simple failure to use contraceptives.  this is the second point 24 brings up, and one with which i heartily agree.  it is a sh!tty thing to end a life simply because you failed to take basic precautions and the ease with which people do this is alarming.  i think 200 years from now people will look at the frequency with which abortions were performed and the rationale behind the abortions in abject horror.

73
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: September 14, 2008, 11:38:10 AM »
it comes down to (usually) i was lazy (drunk, stupid, reckless, etc) and now, like, i have this baby and um, it's a real bummer so um can we just get rid of it?

Is this how you plan to model for the tactless liberals here how they should conduct conversations with those with whom they disagree?  It's probably not the best look.
my point miss P is that the pro-choice argument usually boils down to: because it's inconvenient.  while they make much of the plight of women who are raped or very sick, the vast majority of abortions carried out in this country come down to a simple decision about what is most expedient.  this seems like a profoundly solipsistic position. the essential question is simply: when does human life begin?  i think the answer is that human life begins at conception.  why you choose to preserve that life or end it was not 24's main point, although i think it is important to explore the motivations because it tells us where we are as a society. many pro-choice advocates quickly transition from this discussion (which makes them uncomfortable) to a doomsday scenario of dimly lit alleyways and coat hangars.  this is something that will simply never happen in this country.  we have one of the most liberal abortion policies in the world (much looser than Germany's for example).  as law students/lawyers we all know that in the unlikely event Roe v. Wade (which is built upon a really crappy argument, i think even rabidly pro-choice people concede this) is overturned, abortion will not suddenly become illegal in the U.S.  this is 100% fear-mongering. 

74
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: September 14, 2008, 10:30:40 AM »

Lastly, being opposed to abortion does not make someone "pro-life."  It means they are opposed to women having the choice to abort an unwanted or difficult pregnancy.  They are, strictly speaking, anti-choice, in relation to this issue.  Conversely, being supportive of a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion does not make someone "anti-life."  They are, strictly speaking, pro-choice, in relation to this issue.   

I realize that abortion is a political issue, but it should be viewed as a legal issue.
When does the law have to protect the rights of a person.

I think human rights should be given to life from conception on.
If you shoot a pregnant woman in the stomach, and she survives but the baby dies, you should be prosecuted for murder.

That doesn't mean I want to take away the rights of women, or that I'm part of the religious right wing.
"Unwanted" pregnancies come from wanted sex.  Adults know, or should know, that their actions could result in a pregnancy. 

So you would be okay with your wife refusing to have sex with you, until say, menopause?

20-25% of all abortions are by married women.  Most of the pregnancies are birth control failures.  If married people don't want more/any kids, they should not have sex, correct?  Funny, before no-fault, that was grounds for divorce in most states.

this misses 24's point which is that human life begins at conception.  i would love to see the documentation on birth control failures.  if married people don't want more kids, they should use birth control, not avoid sex. you create a false choice.  the pill is almost 100% effective.  if you want to be even more certain, avoid the time when she would normally ovulate.  not hard to do. if she doesn't like taking the pill, then use a condom and avoid the ovulation window, also quite effective.  24 makes an excellent point when he states that unwanted pregnancies come from wanted sex. the panoply of contraceptive devices available to men and women today, make the whole unwanted argument much harder to swallow.  it comes down to (usually) i was lazy (drunk, stupid, reckless, etc) and now, like, i have this baby and um, it's a real bummer so um can we just get rid of it?  women who are raped or sick make up a tiny minority of people who obtain abortions.  i cannot in good conscience judge women who must make a choice under those, very limited circumstances.  those situations pose an awful dilemma. the "convenience" abortions though are symptomatic of the times; people want all the fun and none of the responsibility.  with all the freedoms the sexual revolution brought, and i think many of them were necessary/great, we have yet to accept much of the tremendous responsibilities that accompany these newly found freedoms.

75
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: September 13, 2008, 04:51:42 PM »
miss P although we disagree on many things i was following your logic up until you quoted krugman.  i mean come on.  i can send you some link to jonah goldberg articles if you want.  obama is engaged in some pretty heinous hypocrisy himself.  did you know that the campaign has sent 30 surrogates to alaska to delve into palin's past in search of junk?  do you recall what obama did in his senate bid....remember the salacious tidbits from divorce proceedings (sealed at the start of the campaign) he insisted the public have access to? and once it became obvious his side would prevail, he insisted that they not release the material because it had no bearing on the issues? come on.  did you like the hit campaign against hillary mounted by the obama people? in the end i am pretty cynical, and i see this as politics as usual, but please don't pretend that obama isn't in on the little game.  he would be stupid to ignore these effective tactics (and he's not stupid).

Because Krugman said it, it can't be true?  This seems at odds with your most recent posts about respecting and engaging with those with whom you disagree.

I don't find your examples germane or persuasive, but I am not here to defend the Obama campaign.  (You may have noticed that I am not a big supporter.)  I do happen to think it would be ridiculous to enter a national campaign against a relatively unknown candidate without sending researchers to her jurisdiction, etc., but YM (and scruples) MV.

The Krugman column was about how Republicans have successfully deployed an us-vs.-them politics of class resentment that claims (1) that Democrats have less in common with working-class ("real," "hardworking") Americans than Republicans do and (2) that Democrats continuously disparage ordinary people whom the Republicans cherish and protect.  (Clinton also did this at the end of the primary season.)  When a Democrat says, "Republican X doesn't have your best interests in mind: he plans to reduce regulations that protect workers and the environment, cut the social programs that serve you, end bankruptcy protections, ship jobs overseas, etc.," Republicans call it "class warfare."  Well all the Republican traffic in symbols like bowling and hunting is also class warfare.  This Republican class warfare is a more venal and disingenuous variety since it (1) makes false claims about Democrats and their attitudes toward working-class people or conservatives and (2) doesn't have anything to with the real differences between the parties when it comes to public policy.  (It's particularly frustrating to see how much success the Republicans have with this when most of their purported identification with the working class is so thin.  Take Cheney and hunting, for example: he was in costume on private land shooting tamed birds who had been released in front of him.  What does this effete activity have to do with the kind of hunting you do?)

EDIT for small clarification

dude. i read the article already.  krugman is a shill for the democratic party, just like goldberg shoots for the republicans.  i never said what he contends isn't true, my point is that both sides revel in these kinds of base appeals.  to say that republicans somehow have a monopoly on these tactics is naive at best and at worst completely disingenuous.  watch the democratic machine go after palin and completely trash her reputation...and not because she's thin on the issues (and i believe her ignorance is encyclopedic by the by).  i hope i'm wrong but they are going to pull out every nasty bit of crap they can find and the overwhelming majority of it will be of little substance (i.e. the fact that she hasn't traveled abroad instead of how she feels about aggressively expanding NATO given russia's latest little stretching routine for example).  same games, different party.  as to the cheney point: it seems to be a common belief among liberals that conservatives (as opposed to republicans) must somehow rise to this administration's defense.  nothing could be further from the truth.  bush has been disastrous for the conservative movement.  the thought of cheney doing anything remotely athletic is worthy of moliere. 

76
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: September 13, 2008, 03:11:29 PM »
jeffislouie and i don't agree on everything but i can say as a conservative that it is precisely this type of logic (piggy's) that gets liberals in trouble.  . . .
Your interpretation of Piggy's comment is puzzling.  He simply suggested that if jeffislouie, in particular, would rather make uninformed, mean-spirited comments about other posters based on their party or ideological identification than engage them in legitimate debate on real issues or policy, he might be more comfortable on Ann Coulter's Web site than this one.  That seems clear enough for even a mouth-breathing hayseed or bomb-throwing Ann Coulter to figure out.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.  It's disingenuous of you to come in now and claim that Piggy was deploying negative stereotypes about conservatives when he was actually responding specifically to one poster's form of discourse and saying that it would fit in at one particularly heinous blog.  Your comment is especially rich because the purported victim in this exchange has, since his entrance into this discussion, repeatedly swiped at "lefty loons" and "liberal morons."  Why isn't it this kind of logic that gets conservatives in trouble?  Perhaps because jeffislouie, like Piggy, is just some random person on the internet and not a representative of his party or people who think like him.  The rest of your post depends on generalizations about liberals that are just not supported by Piggy's exchange with jeffislouie.

Here is a small sample of the things jeffislouie has said in this thread:

Quote from: jeffislouie, June 18
Dean hates America
 

Quote from: jeffislouie
Yet [Democrats] claim to care about the poor?  Please.  They care about pandering to the poor.

Quote from: jeffislouie on Obama, June 24
a marxist leftist, with a sordid past and ties to reprehensible people, who intends to raise taxes, raid legal, privately earned profits to pay for fantasy programs that expand the power of government, and negotiate with terrorist nations

Quote from: jeffislouie, August 28
all liberals care about is attaining power though....  Who cares what's best for the nation when all you care about is power?

Quote from: jeffislouie, September 3
liberals are power-hungry liars

***

Hunting is repulsive and retarded.  I don't know anyone who disapproves of it, myself included, because they're "scared" of it.  That may be nice for the ego, but it's bunk. If many liberals don't understand "rural culture," oh well.  I highly doubt many hunters are sitting around trying to better understand urban life.  There are, however, a great many more people in the liberal and conservative middles who aren't so selfish as to cast votes based on whether or not a candidate likes their particular God or choice of small-penis compensating weekend activity.  Those are the people both parties should be most concerned with.  Not those who need to share a pew or a rifle or a latte or a Volvo with their president. 

the bolded statements and your use of expressions like anti-choice make it difficult to see how you would engage in a meaningful conversation with these your fellow countrymen.  this is the problem with the intellectual wing of the liberal movement.  the difference between you and me, i think, is that i've read the same books you have and sat through the same courses you have and yet i can walk into a bar in a mining town in west virginia and strike up a convo without coming across as uppity, i get the feeling (and i'll gladly let you prove otherwise) you would have trouble doing that.  these aren't the kind of people who think Best In Show is a funny movie.  that doesn't make them dumb.  i think the problem with people who hold your worldview is that you see these large segments of our population as the great unwashed, an unfortunate reality that we just have to deal with.  by the way look up chronic wasting disease.  also google deer starvation.  hunting is an essential component in thinning an overpopulated, sick herd.  do you think native americans who invoke their hunting and fishing rights also have small penises?

I don't hunt, and the idea of actually shooting a gun at a living thing freaks me out.  (This is part of the reason I don't eat mammals, though I have other, more intellectual reasons as well.)  I agree with you that Sax's comments on this subject, taken on their own, are probably more hostile and judgmental than they need to be. 

That said, there's a pretty big leap from finding someone's opinion on one subject objectionable in some way to assuming that he can't relate to people with whom he disagrees or who lead different lives.  I know that I spend a lot of time with people who have made choices that I would never make or do things that I would never do (from using intravenous drugs, to having a babies as teenagers, to purchasing SUVs, to owning guns, to buying brand name handbags when they don't have enough money to serve organic vegetables for dinner, to rooting for the Yankees -- etc., ad nauseum).  I find that people who disagree about priorities or even morality can usually communicate just fine, whether by focusing on common ground or by sharing their opinions in a respectful manner and moving on.  From my past disagreements with Sax, I'm pretty sure he finds this pretty easy himself.

Yet all this hunting and mooseburger stuff is a distraction.  I grew up around a lot of people who hunt.  I never suggested that they were depraved, and they never seemed to care that I didn't hunt and probably wouldn't if they tried to invite me.  When we talked about it, we might have teased each other a bit, but that's it.  Sure, this kind of civil engagement is sometimes missing from political discourse.  Yet where's the issue?  Is any Obama-Biden spokesperson really insulting hunting or hunters, or saying that they are depraved?  There may be some vegetarian or dailykos nonsense about this (I imagine it's mostly poking fun at the novelty of a Miss Alaska-pageanter with a rifle or a knife) but there is no "Democratic position on hunting" or anything of the sort.  We are all intelligent enough to distinguish between right-wing bloggers who spread rumors about Obama being a Muslim or who call him an "African American Marxist" (I have, personally, read both of these things) and the platform of the Republican party or the positions of the McCain-Palin campaign.  I wish the McCain campaign would respect this distinction when it comes to the Democrats instead of trying to confuse voters about who said what and who judged whom.

In case you have not read it, I recommend this column about the Republicans' deft usage of the politics of resentment.  I'm sure you'll disagree with some of it, but I think you'll also recognize that it's mostly true.  McCain's shadowboxing has been very effective so far, but it's rather dishonest.

miss P although we disagree on many things i was following your logic up until you quoted krugman.  i mean come on.  i can send you some link to jonah goldberg articles if you want.  obama is engaged in some pretty heinous hypocrisy himself.  did you know that the campaign has sent 30 surrogates to alaska to delve into palin's past in search of junk?  do you recall what obama did in his senate bid....remember the salacious tidbits from divorce proceedings (sealed at the start of the campaign) he insisted the public have access to? and once it became obvious his side would prevail, he insisted that they not release the material because it had no bearing on the issues? come on.  did you like the hit campaign against hillary mounted by the obama people? in the end i am pretty cynical, and i see this as politics as usual, but please don't pretend that obama isn't in on the little game.  he would be stupid to ignore these effective tactics (and he's not stupid).

77
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: September 13, 2008, 03:00:20 PM »
First, the small penis thing was a joke, so lighten up.  Not all hunters have small penises, just as not all liberals drive Volvos.  For instance, I drive a Saab and I don't believe my large penis is actually related to my aversion to blood sports.  I find the slaughter of animals for entertainment purposes disgusting.  Please, let's not pretend that there aren't humane ways to deal with overpopulation, that most hunters take to the woods out of concern for sick herds or that deers are the only animals targeted.  In 2006, we defeated in MI a ballot initiative to allow the hunting of doves.  Doves.  Can you think of anything more barbaric or pathetic than grown man blasting the cooing, international sign of peace out of the sky to put on their grills?  I can't.  As for jack24, yes.  Fishing is gross.  But, just don't tell me what to "stick with" and we'll be fine.  Thanks.  

Anyway, that's beside the point of whether or not I'd be "uppity" in a West Virginia bar.  You don't actually know me, so feel free to draw whatever uniformed conclusions you'd like.  I certainly don't feel any obligation to disprove assumptions not based in any fact.  I will, however, say that I don't believe finding "Best in Show" funny makes someone uppity and I don't believe not finding it funny makes someone a hick.  Your conceptions of how people from different backgrounds do or can interact with each other seem to be rather narrow, stereotypical and naive.

Lastly, being opposed to abortion does not make someone "pro-life."  It means they are opposed to women having the choice to abort an unwanted or difficult pregnancy.  They are, strictly speaking, anti-choice, in relation to this issue.  Conversely, being supportive of a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion does not make someone "anti-life."  They are, strictly speaking, pro-choice, in relation to this issue.  

I'm not sure how preventing a group of people with one political view from casting a group of people with a divergent view as something they aren't makes me incapable of engaging in meaningful conversation with my fellow countrymen.  It would seem those willing to suggest that their fellow countrymen are opposed to the act of living would be those incapable.  

i'm not so sure you were joking.  why not anti-abortion?  by saying anti-choice you create a false dichotomy; the choice is not, abortion or not abortion.  what about adoption, or say availing yourself of contraception so you don't get pregnant in the first place (a "choice" to use contraceptives).  most abortions are not performed to save the life of the mother or in the cases of rape or incest but because it is inconvenient.  this is a crappy reason to end a life. especially when you can get condoms and birth control pills for free. also it slays me that you would be more concerned about shooting a pigeon than ending a human life. you have incisors and eyes planted on the front of your face.  as an omnivore, your species has hunted animals to survive for millennia.  millions of people around the globe still do this.  do they have small penises? even in these areas the hunt is seen as a form of entertainment as well.  is that disgusting? why did you feel like you had to mention you drive a saab and that you have a large member? and yes i only hunt deer.  and yes its to a. thin the herd and b. eat venison which i really enjoy.  what other humane ways do you propose to control the deer population?  lethal injection? cyanide salt licks? electric fences.  deer also injure and kill lots of people around here when cars run into them.  hemingway often commented that among the cruelest people he met in his life identified more with animals than people.

78
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: September 13, 2008, 01:25:48 PM »

Hunting is repulsive and retarded.  I don't know anyone who disapproves of it, myself included, because they're "scared" of it.  That may be nice for the ego, but it's bunk.  If many liberals don't understand "rural culture," oh well.  I highly doubt many hunters are sitting around trying to better understand urban life.  There are, however, a great many more people in the liberal and conservative middles who aren't so selfish as to cast votes based on whether or not a candidate likes their particular God or choice of small-penis compensating weekend activity.  Those are the people both parties should be most concerned with.  Not those who need to share a pew or a rifle or a latte or a Volvo with their president. 
 

the bolded statements and your use of expressions like anti-choice make it difficult to see how you would engage in a meaningful conversation with these your fellow countrymen.  this is the problem with the intellectual wing of the liberal movement.  the difference between you and me, i think, is that i've read the same books you have and sat through the same courses you have and yet i can walk into a bar in a mining town in west virginia and strike up a convo without coming across as uppity, i get the feeling (and i'll gladly let you prove otherwise) you would have trouble doing that.  these aren't the kind of people who think Best In Show is a funny movie.  that doesn't make them dumb.  i think the problem with people who hold your worldview is that you see these large segments of our population as the great unwashed, an unfortunate reality that we just have to deal with.  by the way look up chronic wasting disease.  also google deer starvation.  hunting is an essential component in thinning an overpopulated, sick herd.  do you think native americans who invoke their hunting and fishing rights also have small penises?

79
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: September 13, 2008, 12:05:48 PM »
piggypop said:

If you'd like to make statements like that, I'm sure the comments section of Ann Coulter's blog would welcome you.  Otherwise, here, you deserve what comes of it.


jeffislouie and i don't agree on everything but i can say as a conservative that it is precisely this type of logic (piggy's) that gets liberals in trouble.  assuming that all conservatives are either mouth-breathing hayseeds or bomb-throwers like ann coulter is ridiculous...it also alienates a sizeable portion of the electorate, some of whom might actually vote for the democratic ticket. it floors me for example that the expression on many liberal's faces when they describe palin's affiliation with a fundamentalist church closely resembles the look one might register upon discovering they've stepped in a steaming pile.  say what you want about christianity, even the bible-banging variety, this is a country of churchgoers.  roman catholics like me get annoyed when liberals question the intelligence of a candidate because she believes in god.  the fact that she is a pentecostal christian for example seems to bother many intellectual liberals far more than obama's affiliation with a rabidly racist minister and a salvation-based (as in you are either saved or you aren't), fundamentalist approach to religion.  this is completely incongruous.  her approach to life is met with thinly veiled scorn, even by the likes of Charlie Gibson, who is supposed to maintain some semblance of objectivity.  guess what, about half the country is pro-life.  pissing them off by insulting their world view is hardly an intelligent approach to winning an election.  my liberal friends (and let's be honest, the truly countercultural viewpoint these days is the conservative one, these days you can't throw a dead cat without hitting some student protest or a group of liberal students or faculty...i don't think there is a single conservative professor at my school) often cluck their tongues disapprovingly when i mention my pro-life stance as if i am somehow intolerant of their viewpoint.  when i ask them if they would ever vote for a pro-life candidate they almost scream out "hell no!"  if i agreed with a candidate on 90% of the issues, but disagreed with them on abortion, i would seriously consider voting for them.  this is at least as much of a litmus test for liberals, those who claim to be accepting of a broad range of viewpoints, than it is for social conservatives.  guns are another interesting one. never mind that the right to bear arms (let us set aside the interpretation of the amendment for a moment) is actually explicitly mentioned in the bill of rights.  this kills intellectual liberals.  it is far harder to get to "a right to privacy" reading the constitution than it is to reach "i can own whatever f-ing gun i choose".  visiting liberal blogs i notice people make much noise about palin's pro-gun stance and her ability to field dress a deer.  again, bad idea.  i go deer hunting with many lunch pail democrats (truck drivers, bar owners, construction workers) who don't like the way intellectual liberals belittle what is for them an important facet of their lives. hunting season is bigger than christmas in these families.  in this way intellectual liberals show the same kind of xenophobic tendencies they slam the right with.  they don't understand the rural hunting culture. it scares them. so they demonize it.  these are good hard working people.  so they can't talk derrida.  they're god-fearing, gun-toting, pick-up driving blue collar democrats.  remember, the ones reagan won over in his two landslides?  be careful how you talk to people.  you are clearly and absolutely in the majority on these boards.  you are clearly and absolutely in the majority on campus where your worldview is reinforced in the echo chamber of academia.  just realize that the real world isn't like that and that tens of millions of your fellow countrymen don't agree with you on much and that as an intellectual liberal (as opposed to the blue collar liberals, the farm and labor types) you are actually a pretty small minority.   

80
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: September 07, 2008, 11:06:56 PM »
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-07-poll_N.htm
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1548
http://www.gallup.com/poll/110050/Gallup-Daily-McCain-Moves-Ahead-48-45.aspx

how is this happening?  how can Obama be BEHIND? every conceivable advantage and he's losing. it may only be for a moment, or perhaps the unthinkable is underway.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 80